ALI MOHAMMAD DAR vs UNION TERRITORY THORUGH POLICE STATION KULGAM AND ANR. (HOME)

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

CrlA(D) No. 58/2025
CrLM no. 1116/2025
CrlA(D) No. 63/2025
CrLM No. 1134/2025 c/w Crl Ref (L) No. 01/2025

Reserved on: 30.04.2026
Pronounced on: 29.05.2026
Uploaded on: 30.05.2026
Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced: Full .

(CrlA(D) No. 58/2025)
Ali Mohammad Dar aged 50 years
S/O Ama Dar
R/O Modergam, Tehsil and District Kulgam
through his son
Zuhaib Ali aged 21 years
S/O Ali Mohammad Dar
R/O Modergam, Tehsil and District Kulgam …. Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. S. T. Hussain, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate (in CrlA(D) no. 58/2025)
V/s
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through
SHO Police Station Kulgam.
2. Superintendent Central Jail, Srinagar. ….. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Alla Ud Din Ganai, AAG
c/w
(CrlA(D) No. 63/2025)
Mst. Muzamila …. Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. Tahir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate with
Mr. Bhat Shafi, Advocate &
Mr. Abdul Wakeel Koka, Adv. (in CrlA(D) No. 63/2025).
V/s

State (Union Territory) of J&K
through Police Station Kulgam

Through: Mr. Alla Ud Din Ganai, AAG
CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

J U D G E M E N T

Per Sanjay Parihar-J

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam
(hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in File Nos.330/B and

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 1 of 24

57/B arising out of FIR No. 343/2013 registered at Police Station
Kulgam for offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B RPC. By virtue
of the impugned judgment, both the appellants came to be convicted
for the offence u/s 302 RPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life. A fine of ₹3,00,000/- was also imposed upon appellant Ali
Mohammad Dar, with a default sentence of one year’s simple
imprisonment. However, appellant- Muzamilla who was wife of the
deceased, no fine was ultimately imposed upon her. The Trial Court,
while awarding sentence, also made a reference for confirmation of
sentence.
2. Both the appellants have preferred separate appeals which, owing to
the commonality of facts and issues involved, have been clubbed
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The conviction and sentence are assailed primarily on the ground that
the findings recorded by the Trial Court are founded upon conjectures
and surmises and are unsupported by legally admissible evidence. It is
contended that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were
neither reliable nor of sterling quality and were riddled with
contradictions and inconsistencies, yet the Trial Court erroneously
relied upon such shaky evidence to return a finding of guilt. It is
further urged that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against
the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and that the findings recorded
by the Trial Court run contrary to settled principles governing criminal
jurisprudence.
4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on
21.12.2013, Police Station Kulgam received information regarding the
suspicious death of Abdul Rashid Dar S/o Haji Nabir Dar R/o

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 2 of 24

Modergam (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). Upon receipt of
the information, PW-32 ASI Mohammad Sultan rushed to the spot and
found the dead body of the deceased hanging from a tree in an orchard.
It was noticed that the private parts of the deceased had been mutilated
and that his neck bone appeared to have got fractured because of
hanging. After conducting inquest proceedings under Section 174
Cr.P.C., it surfaced that the deceased had been killed by unknown
persons and his body was subsequently hung from the tree to create an
impression of suicide. Consequently, FIR No. 343/2013 under Section
302 RPC came to be registered and investigation was entrusted to PW-
34.
5. During investigation, it allegedly transpired that the wife of the
deceased, namely co-appellant Muzamilla, was maintaining illicit
relations with appellant Ali Mohammad Dar and that both had
conspired to eliminate the deceased. Upon detention and interrogation
of the appellants and other suspects, appellant Ali Mohammad Dar
allegedly made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had been in
an illicit relationship with the co-appellant for a considerable period
and that they had jointly planned the murder of the deceased.
According to the prosecution, he disclosed that on the date of
occurrence, the deceased was administered Anxit-0.5 tablets to render
him unconscious, where-after his private parts were squeezed and a
cloth was thrust into his mouth while his nostrils were closed, resulting
in his death. Thereafter, during the night, the body of the deceased was
allegedly taken from the house to a nearby orchard and suspended
from a tree with the aid of a lady’s trouser and dupatta so as to portray
the incident as one of suicide.

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 3 of 24

6. It is further alleged that co-appellant Muzamilla also made a similar
disclosure statement on 27.12.2013. On the basis of the said
disclosures, the investigating agency claimed to have recovered a
Nokia mobile phone, one black dupatta, a steel glass, and a strip of
Anxit-0.5 tablets containing four tablets. The medical opinion obtained
during investigation opined that the death of the deceased had occurred
due to fracture/dislocation of the neck bone caused by hanging.
7. On completion of investigation, the appellants were formally charge-
sheeted on 20.02.2014 and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. Charges under Sections 302/34 RPC and 120-B RPC were
framed against both the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as thirty-six
witnesses, including PW-1 Mohammad Yousuf Dar, PW-2 Ghulam
Mohammad Wani, PW-3 Abdul Hamid Wani, PW-5 Ghulam Mohi-
ud-din Padder, PW-6 Manzoor Ahmad Dar, PW-14 Khalid Rashid
Dar, PW-15 Uzma Rashid, PW-16 Chaman Lal, PW-31 Dr. Rayees
Ahmad Halla, PW-32 ASI Mohammad Sultan, and PW-34 DySP
Shabir Ahmad, among others.
9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined
under Section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all incriminating
circumstances put to them and asserted false implication. The defence
also examined DW-1 Tufail Ahmad Shah.
10. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, concluded that the
death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and amounted to
murder. It held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that
both the appellants were maintaining illicit relations and had conspired

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 4 of 24

together to eliminate the deceased in order to continue their
relationship unhindered. The Trial Court further held that the
appellants had committed overt and covert acts in furtherance of the
conspiracy and that the recoveries effected pursuant to the disclosure
statements corroborated the prosecution case.
11. The defence set up by appellant Ali Mohammad Dar that he was not
present at the place of occurrence was rejected by the Trial Court. It
was observed that appellant Muzamilla, being the wife of the deceased,
was present in the house and acted as the principal facilitator in
execution of the plan. The Trial Court held that the prosecution had
succeeded in proving the motive for commission of the offence and
that the recovery of “Anxit” tablets established that the deceased had
been administered sedatives before being subjected to physical assault
and subsequently hanged in the orchard to give the appearance of
suicide. On the aforesaid reasoning, the Trial Court convicted both the
appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 RPC and
sentenced them accordingly.
12. Before adverting to the merits of the rival submissions, it would be
appropriate to briefly advert to the evidence led by the prosecution
witnesses. PW-1 Mohammad Yousuf Dar is a witness to the
identification of the dead body. He stated that on 21.12.2013, the dead
body of the deceased was found hanging from a tree in the orchard at
Khirnad, with a lady’s trouser used as the ligature. He further deposed
that the post-mortem examination was conducted at Kulgam. PW-2
Ghulam Mohammad Wani, the Numberdar of the locality, also stated
that the body was recovered on 21.12.2013 from Khirnad, where it was
found suspended from a tree. According to him, the ligature material

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 5 of 24

was seized and taken to the Police Station, after which the body was
subjected to autopsy. He further deposed that appellant Ali
Mohammad Dar made a disclosure statement in his presence,
admitting that he was having illicit relations with the co-appellant and
that both had conspired to eliminate the deceased. He stated that on or
about 20.12.2013, the appellant had procured medicine from the shop
of PW-16 Chaman Lal and handed it over to the co-appellant, who
mixed it in milk and administered it to the deceased, following which
they carried out the killing.
13. PW-3 Abdul Hamid Wani deposed that the body of the deceased was
found hanging. He further stated that appellant Ali Mohammad Dar
disclosed that the deceased’s mouth had been gagged with a scarf and
he was suffocated, while the co-appellant mutilated his private parts,
thereby rendering him motionless. Thereafter, the body was allegedly
taken to the Aad and hanged from a tree. He claimed to be a witness to
the disclosure memo marked EXPW-5. He also stated that initially
four to five persons from the locality had been suspected of the
incident and arrested, but later the Police informed them that it was the
appellant who had killed the deceased.
14. PW-5 Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Padder, the Sarpanch of the area, stated
that the Investigating Officer informed him that co-appellant
Muzamilla had admitted her involvement in the occurrence and
disclosed that Ali Mohammad Dar had brought medicine to the house
of the deceased. According to the witness, she had gone into the
kitchen where her children were sitting, while the deceased was
reciting the Quran in another room. She allegedly mixed the medicine
in a glass of milk and gave it to the deceased. Thereafter, his face was

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 6 of 24

wrapped with a scarf, causing him to become unconscious, and later
his body was taken to the Aad and hanged. He claimed to be a witness
to the disclosure statement. However, he further admitted that the
disclosure statement EXPW-5 was not recorded in his presence, nor in
the presence of PW-6 Manzoor Ahmad Dar or PW-2 Ghulam
Mohammad Wani. He also stated that when the Investigating Officer
asked him to sign the disclosure statement, he initially refused and
stated that he would sign only after putting questions to the appellant,
whereafter he signed the same.
15. PW-6 Manzoor Ahmad Dar, brother of the deceased, stated that he was
not present at the scene and had reached there only after a few days of
the incident. He deposed that the appellants were allegedly having
illicit relations and that on an earlier occasion the deceased had
rebuked Ali Mohammad Dar and had even informed the latter’s father-
in-law and wife about the same. According to him, on 27.12.2013, co-
appellant Muzamilla made a disclosure statement in his presence. He
further stated that empty strips of medicine were recovered from an
open place, the glass was recovered from the kitchen, and the scarf was
recovered from a box containing other clothes. He deposed that after
the deceased recited the Quran, the co-appellant administered milk
mixed with medicine to him, rendering him unconscious. Thereafter,
she covered him with a blanket and went to the kitchen where her
children were present and served them food. Subsequently, Ali
Mohammad Dar allegedly arrived carrying a lady’s trouser and a piece
of cloth, and the deceased was tied with the same, resulting in the
breaking of his neck bone during hanging. The witness identified the

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 7 of 24

scarf, glass, mobile phone and medicine covers allegedly recovered
during investigation.
16. PW-7 Abdul Salam Dar, another brother of the deceased, stated that he
was in Uttar Pradesh at the time of the incident and, upon returning,
learnt about the alleged illicit relationship between the appellants. He
further stated that on an earlier occasion the deceased had reprimanded
Ali Mohammad Dar and that a scuffle had even taken place between
them in his presence. He also claimed to be a witness to the recovery
proceedings and stated that the glass was recovered from a shelf. He
admitted that whenever Muzamilla fell ill, it was appellant Ali
Mohammad Dar who used to visit the house of the deceased to
administer injections. He further stated that about five months prior to
the incident, he had asked Ali Mohammad Dar to desist from
maintaining relations with the co-appellant.
17. PW-14 Khalid Rashid Dar, son of the deceased, deposed that after
Friday prayers he had gone to play with his cousin and, upon returning
home, asked his mother about his father, whereupon she replied that he
had gone to Kandipora for admission purposes. Since his father did not
return, his mother asked PW-15 Uzma Rashid, daughter of the
deceased, to call her maternal aunt so that they could all sleep together.
Accordingly, they slept in the same room. In the morning he went to
school and at about 11:00 AM learnt that his father’s body had been
found hanging from a tree. He immediately returned home and
informed his mother, who at that time was in the cowshed. He further
stated that during Shab-e-Qadr in the month of Ramzan, while his
father was offering prayers and the witness was accompanying him,
the deceased had sent him home to fetch tea, whereupon he saw

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 8 of 24

appellant Ali Mohammad Dar present in the house. He also stated that
th
on 20 night his father had offered prayers throughout the night and
thereafter left for Kandipora for admission purposes but never
returned.
18. PW-15 Uzma Rashid, daughter of the deceased, stated that her father
had gone out but did not return till the evening of 20.12.2013. On the
following morning, while taking cow dung to the fields, her cousin
informed her that her father’s body had been found hanging in the
Aad. Police thereafter arrived at the spot and took away the body.
Subsequently, she came to know that her mother had allegedly
participated in the killing of her father and had been arrested.
19. PW-16 Chaman Lal stated that he was working in the Health
Department and that the father of appellant Ali Mohammad Dar was
mentally unsound owing to an earlier head injury. According to him,
the father of the appellant used to wander away during nights and, on
being informed of his condition, the witness had arranged certain
medicines for him after purchasing the same from Kulgam. He stated
that some time earlier appellant Ali Mohammad Dar had obtained four
tablets from him for administering the same to his father.
20. PW-17 Mst. Raja Begum, though declared hostile, stated that she had
heard that the appellants were having illicit relations and that Ali
Mohammad Dar used to visit the house regularly. According to her,
the deceased as well as the villagers were unhappy about such conduct.
She also stated that on the day the body was recovered, she saw the
body of the deceased hanging from a tree. However, she denied having
knowledge about any confession made by the appellants.

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 9 of 24

21. PW-18 Mst. Lateefa expressed ignorance regarding the occurrence.
PW-22 Mohammad Yaseen Parray, who was working as a distributor
for Vodafone Company, stated that on 02.01.2014 Police personnel
approached him in connection with the investigation and sought details
regarding SIM Nos. 8715029679 and 8713924979. Upon verification,
he found that both numbers were registered in the name of appellant
Ali Mohammad Dar. He advised the investigating agency to approach
the Nodal Officer of Vodafone for further details.
22. PW-23 Mohammad Amin Dar, Tehsildar, stated that Police personnel
from Police Station Kulgam produced before him one black scarf, one
cream-coloured lady’s trouser and a yellow-coloured cloth, all of
which were sealed in his presence. He thereafter prepared the resealing
memo and handed over the same to the Police.
23. PW-24, PW-25 and PW-26 deposed regarding the procurement of Call
Detail Records from the service providers.
24. PW-29 Head Constable Mst. Maryam No. 1000/Kgm stated that co-
appellant Muzamilla made a disclosure statement in Kashmiri
language admitting her involvement in the killing of her husband.
According to her, the disclosure memo was written by PW-32 ASI
Mohammad Sultan, who obtained her signatures thereon. She could
not recollect the exact time at which the disclosure statement was
recorded, but stated that it was before 1:00 PM. She further stated that
at the time of recording the disclosure statement, PW-34 DySP
Headquarters Shabir Ahmad was not present. According to her, co-
appellant Muzamilla had remained with her in a separate room for
fifteen days and only thereafter ASI Mohammad Sultan directed her to
bring Muzamilla to his room where the disclosure statement was

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 10 of 24

recorded. She admitted that the disclosure was recorded fifteen days
after the occurrence and further stated that whatever narration was
made by Muzamilla was reduced into writing.
25. PW-31 Dr. Rayees Ahmad Halla noticed a ligature in the form of a
lady’s trouser around the neck of the deceased. He observed a ligature
mark in the upper part of the neck in the form of a groove,
approximately one and a half inches in width, with multiple bruises on
its surface. He also noticed multiple injuries on the scrotum in the form
of abrasions with scab formation. According to him, the eyes were not
protruded, pupils were dilated, and the tongue remained inside the
mouth with cyanosed lips. He found dislocation at C1 and C2
vertebrae, while the chest was normal. He proved the post-mortem
report EXPW-31 and stated that the ligature found around the neck
could be used either for hanging or strangulation. According to him,
death had occurred approximately 15–25 hours prior to the post-
mortem examination. He further opined that the death was not a case
of smothering and that there were fewer signs suggestive of asphyxia.
In his opinion, the cause of death was dislocation of C1 and C2
vertebrae.
26. PW-32 ASI Mohammad Sultan deposed that on 21.12.2013 he
received information that the dead body of the deceased was lying at
Khirnad in village Motargam and that the death had occurred under
suspicious circumstances. He stated that he initially photographed the
scene of occurrence and that the body was identified by PW-1.
According to him, during post-mortem it was noticed that there were
bruises on the testes, scratches on the body and an apparently broken
neck, from which he concluded that the deceased had been killed and

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 11 of 24

thereafter his body was hanged from the tree. He therefore inferred that
the case was not one of suicide but homicide, upon which the FIR
came to be registered.
27. PW-34 Dy.SP Headquarters Shabir Ahmad stated that initially the
inquiry was conducted by ASI Mohammad Sultan and that after
registration of the FIR he took over the investigation. According to
him, during investigation several persons were rounded up on
suspicion and eventually it surfaced that the deceased had become a
victim of the alleged illicit relationship between the two appellants,
who were thereafter apprehended and allegedly confessed their
involvement in the crime. He proved the disclosure statements EXPW-
5 and EXPW-5/1 and stated that pursuant thereto recoveries of a scarf,
steel glass, mobile phone, medicine cover and SIM card were effected
in the presence of witnesses. He further stated that Call Detail Records
were obtained during investigation. However, he admitted that
although the son and daughter of the deceased were present in the
house on the night of occurrence, none of the witnesses had stated that
they had seen appellant Ali Mohammad Dar entering the house of the
deceased. He further stated that the occurrence had taken place during
the night and that, according to the medical opinion, the cause of death
was hanging. This, in brief, is the evidence that came to be recorded
before the learned Trial Court.
28. The respondents, supporting the impugned judgment, argued that the
findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation
of evidence and call for no interference. It was contended that the
defence failed to rebut the incriminating circumstances appearing
against the appellants and that even in their statements under Section

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 12 of 24

342 Cr.P.C., no explanation was furnished as to how the deceased met
with his death when both appellants were allegedly present around the
scene of occurrence. It was further submitted that merely because the
children of the deceased did not specifically disclose the presence of
appellant Ali Mohammad Dar in the house does not dilute the
otherwise cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
29. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully
perused the record of the Trial Court.
30. At the outset, it may be noted that the prosecution case primarily rests
upon the testimony of PW-32 ASI Mohammad Sultan, who conducted
the initial inquest proceedings and concluded that the death was
homicidal in nature warranting registration of an FIR. The prosecution
has also relied heavily upon the disclosure statements allegedly made
by the appellants, marked as EXPW-5 and EXPW-5/1, wherein they
purportedly confessed to the manner in which the offence was
committed. These disclosures are stated to have been corroborated by
PW-2 Ghulam Mohammad Wani, PW-3 Abdul Hamid Wani, PW-5
Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Padder, PW-6 Manzoor Ahmad Dar, and PW-34
Dy.SP Shabir Ahmad, in whose presence the recoveries were allegedly
effected.
31. The prosecution has further relied upon the medical evidence of PW-
31 Dr. Rayees Ahmad Halla, who opined that the cause of death was
dislocation of C1 and C2 vertebrae due to hanging. He also noticed
ligature marks around the neck and injuries on the scrotum of the
deceased. According to the prosecution, these injuries ruled out the
possibility of suicide and pointed towards homicidal death.

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 13 of 24

32. PW-14 Khalid Rashid Dar and PW-15 Uzma Rashid, the children of
the deceased, though not declared hostile, are stated to be material
witnesses. The prosecution also relied upon the testimony of PW-16
Chaman Lal, from whose shop appellant Ali Mohammad Dar allegedly
procured Anxit tablets used as sedatives.
33. The prosecution case, in essence, is that the appellants, owing to their
illicit relationship, conspired to eliminate the deceased. On the
intervening night of 20/21.12.2013, the deceased was allegedly
administered sedatives mixed in milk, rendered unconscious,
suffocated, subjected to mutilation of his private parts, and thereafter
his body was taken to the orchard and hanged from a tree to simulate
suicide. According to the prosecution, the recoveries made pursuant to
the disclosure statements, coupled with call detail records showing
communication between the appellants, established the conspiracy and
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
34. Having considered the evidence on record, it becomes necessary to
examine the legal admissibility and evidentiary value of the disclosure
statements relied upon by the prosecution. PW-3 Abdul Hamid Wani
though admits of being signatory to the disclosure made by the
appellants but hastened to add that he was told by police about the
involvement of appellants. Similarly, PW- 5 who was the Sarpanch of
the area states that the disclosure statement EXPW-5 was not recorded
in his presence, nor in the presence of PW-6 Manzoor Ahmad Dar or
PW-2 Ghulam Mohammad Wani. The entire prosecution case
substantially revolves around the alleged disclosure statements made
by the appellants while in police custody. The law regarding
admissibility of such statements is no longer res integra . In

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 14 of 24

Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka 2023 Cr.L.J. SC 183,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of recording and
relying upon entire confessional narratives under the guise of
disclosure statements and held that only such portion of the statement
which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was held as under,
“ We
must observe that we have repeatedly found a tendency on part
of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather
than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts.
In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the
principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of
statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind
of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. In the present
case, the Trial Court not only extracted the entire statements but also
relied upon them.
20. The other disturbing feature that we have noticed is that voluntary
statements of the appellants were recorded on a DVD which was played in
Court and formed the basis of the judgment of the Trial Court as
is noticeable from paragraph Nos.34 and 35 of its judgment. Such a
statement is again in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is
completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act, if at all the accused were
desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have
facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate
for appropriate action in terms of Sec.164 of the Code. Any departure
from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on
record as evidence. The Trial Court erred in exhibiting those DVD
statement Exh.P-25 to 28. As a matter of fact, it went further in relying
upon them while concluding the matter on the issue of conviction.”
35. Similarly, in Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana AIR 2015 SCW 3474
the Supreme Court reiterated that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is
merely an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and permits admissibility
only to the extent that the information supplied leads distinctly to the
discovery of a fact. Any confessional or inculpatory part of the
statement remains inadmissible. It was held as under,
“It is clear that Section 27 is in the form of proviso to Section 25 and 26
of the Evidence Act. It makes it clear that so much of such information
which is received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of
a police officer, which has led to discovery of any fact, may be used
against the accused. Such information as given must relate distinctly to
the fact discovered. In the present case, the information provided by all
the appellant-accused in the form of confessional statements, has not led
to any discovery. More starkly put, the recovery of scooter is not related

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 15 of 24

to the confessional statements allegedly made by the appellants. This
recovery was pursuant to the statement made by Harish Chander
Godara. It was not on the basis of any disclosure statements made by
these appellants. Likewise, insofar as confessional statement (Mark A)
allegedly given by Jaibir is concerned, that is again in another FIR. We
shall come to its admissibility separately. Therefore, the situation
contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act also does not get
attracted. Even if the scooter was recovered pursuant to the disclosure
statement, it would have made the fact of recovery of scooter only, as
admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and it would not make
the so-called confessional statements of the appellants admissible which
cannot be held as proved against them”.


36. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the present case, the
narration allegedly made by the appellants before the police regarding
their illicit relationship, conspiracy to eliminate the deceased,
administration of sedatives, and the manner of commission of offence
is clearly in the nature of a confessional statement made while in
police custody. Such inculpatory narration is barred under Sections 25
and 26 of the Evidence Act and cannot be read in evidence except to
the limited extent of discovery of facts under Section 27.
37. Even insofar as the recoveries are concerned, the evidentiary value
thereof appears weak and inconclusive. The alleged recoveries of the
scarf, glass, and Anxit strip were made from the house of co-appellant
Muzamilla and not from any concealed or exclusive place known only
to the appellants. It’s not the case of the prosecution that it took finger
prints on the seized glass allegedly used by appellant in offering glass
of milk laced with Anxit and same later were sent for any kind of
forensic examination. The recovery memos do not clearly indicate the
exact place of concealment or the manner in which the articles were
discovered pursuant to exclusive knowledge of the accused.
Furthermore, the evidence of PW-16 Chaman Lal reveals that the
Anxit tablets had been obtained by appellant Ali Mohammad Dar for

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 16 of 24

his mentally ill father, thereby considerably diluting the prosecution
theory that the tablets were procured specifically for commission of the
offence.
38. Significantly, the medical evidence also fails to support the
prosecution version in material particulars. Though the prosecution
alleged that the deceased had been rendered unconscious by
administration of sedatives, the viscera examination did not reveal
presence of any sedative or poisonous substance in the body of the
deceased. Likewise, while the prosecution alleged smothering and
suffocation, PW-31 Dr. Rayees Ahmad Halla categorically stated that
it was not a case of smothering and that there were minimal features of
asphyxia.
39. Equally important is the fact that there is no direct evidence placing
appellant Ali Mohammad Dar in the house of the deceased on the
intervening night of occurrence. PW-14 Khalid Rashid Dar and PW-15
Uzma Rashid, who were natural witnesses present in the house,
nowhere stated that they had seen appellant Ali Mohammad Dar there
during the relevant night. On the contrary, both witnesses consistently
stated that their father had gone out and did not return home on that
night. They further stated that all family members slept together in the
kitchen that night and came to know about the deceased’s body only
the next morning. It had not been the case of the respondents that the
body of the deceased was recovered from the room where appellant
Muzamilla was sleeping with her children on the fateful night. So
th st
much so there is not an iota of evidence that on the night of 20 /21 of
Dec., 2013 the appellants were seen around or near the place
wherefrom the body was seen lastly and recovered.

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 17 of 24

40. The prosecution has also failed to establish any “last seen”
circumstance against appellant Ali Mohammad Dar. Had he indeed
visited the house during the night, the natural witnesses present therein
would reasonably have noticed and disclosed his presence. The
absence of such evidence strikes at the very root of the prosecution
case. Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Govinda Reddy v. State of
Mysore [AIR 1960 SC 29] laying out principals for appreciation of
case based on circumstantial evidence held as under,
“The mode of evaluating circumstantial evidence has been
stated by this Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 AIR (SC) 343, and it is as follows:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of
a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance
be fully established, and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be
such as to show that within all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused."
41. Thus, once the inadmissible confessional portions of the disclosure
statements are excluded from consideration, the remaining
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution fail to form a complete
and unbroken chain pointing only towards the guilt of the appellants.
The prosecution evidence, viewed cumulatively, falls short of the
standard required for sustaining conviction in a case resting entirely
upon circumstantial evidence.
42. The respondents contend that the mobile phone recovered from co-
appellant Muzamilla, along with its Call Detail Records (CDR),
establishes that she was in regular contact with the appellant, Ali
Mohammad Dar, thereby indicating prior intimacy and proximity

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 18 of 24

between them. According to the respondents, the sequence of events
brought on record demonstrates that the accused persons had entered
into a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. It is further submitted that
the SIM card issued in the name of appellant Ali Mohammad Dar was
being used by him for communication with the co-appellant, which,
according to the prosecution, stands corroborated by the statements of
the prosecution witnesses. The respondents also assert that the motive
for the commission of the offence was evident, inasmuch as the
deceased had become an obstacle in the relationship between the two
and had previously reprimanded Ali Mohammad Dar for maintaining
relations with the co-appellant.
43. In Sheo Shankar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., AIR 2011 SC
1403, it was held as under;
“ The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential
requirement for bringing home the guilt of the accused is fairly well
settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. These decisions have
made a clear distinction between cases where prosecution relies
upon circumstantial evidence on the one hand and those where it
relies upon the testimony of eye witnesses on the other. In the former
category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves,
for proof of a motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of
circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive,
however, recedes into the background in cases where the
prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account of the occurrence.
That is because if the court upon a proper appraisal of the
deposition of the eye-witnesses comes to the conclusion that the
version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the
motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely even if prosecution
succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the
offence, but the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found unreliable or
unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a
safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean
that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness
account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the
court in its ultimate conclusion. Proof of motive in such a situation
certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye- witnesses.”
44. PW-6 Manzoor Ahmad Dar, brother of the deceased, deposed that the
appellants were allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair and that,
on one occasion, the deceased had rebuked his wife over such

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 19 of 24

relationship. To a limited extent, a similar narration emerges from the
statement of PW-17 Mst. Raja; however, upon close scrutiny, her
testimony is found to be hearsay in nature. Even PW-6 was unable to
specify when the deceased had allegedly rebuked his wife. Though
emphasis has been laid by the prosecution on the assertion that
appellant Ali Mohammad was often seen visiting the house of the
deceased, the evidence in that regard is uncertain and unreliable.
45. The Call Detail Record (CDR) evidence relied upon by the
prosecution, even if taken at its highest value, merely gives rise to a
suspicion regarding the conduct and movements of the appellants.
However, it is a cardinal and deeply entrenched principle of criminal
jurisprudence that suspicion, no matter how grave, strong, or
compelling it may appear, can never substitute proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Criminal conviction cannot rest upon conjectures,
assumptions, or moral conviction; rather, it must be founded upon
legally admissible, cogent, and reliable evidence which conclusively
establishes the guilt of the accused. In the present matter, the
prosecution case admittedly does not rest upon any direct eye witness
account and is founded entirely upon circumstantial evidence. It is well
settled that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution is under a stringent legal obligation to establish a complete
and unbroken chain of circumstances which must point exclusively
towards the guilt of the accused and must be wholly inconsistent with
any hypothesis of innocence. Every link in the chain must be firmly
proved, and the cumulative effect of all proved circumstances must
lead to one irresistible conclusion, namely, that the accused alone are
the perpetrators of the crime. In the instant case, however, the

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 20 of 24

prosecution has conspicuously failed to establish such a complete
chain. There is not even an iota of reliable evidence demonstrating that
the appellants were seen together at the relevant time or that they were
in any manner involved in the alleged commission of the offence,
except for the disclosure statements allegedly made by them while in
police custody.
46. What further weakens the prosecution case is the uncertainty
surrounding the very presence of the deceased at his home on the date
and time of the alleged occurrence. Once the prosecution fails to
establish this foundational fact with certainty, the entire edifice of its
case becomes unstable and doubtful. The prosecution theory that the
appellants administered sedatives to the deceased, rendered him
immobile, and thereafter caused his death in the manner projected in
the charge-sheet becomes highly improbable and unsupported by
convincing evidence. The absence of any direct evidence, coupled with
uncertainty regarding the circumstances immediately preceding the
death, creates a serious dent in the prosecution narrative and
undermines its overall credibility.
47. The prosecution has also sought to establish motive by alleging the
existence of an illicit relationship between the appellants and
contending that such relationship prompted them to eliminate the
deceased. No doubt, motive assumes significance in cases resting
entirely upon circumstantial evidence, as it may constitute one of the
links in the chain sought to be established by the prosecution.
However, motive by itself can never take the place of substantive
proof. In the present case, the evidence led to establish motive is not
only weak and uncertain but largely hearsay in nature. The witnesses

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 21 of 24

examined by the prosecution merely made vague assertions regarding
the alleged relationship without furnishing any concrete or convincing
material in support thereof. Significantly, the testimony of PW-7
Abdul Salam Dar reveals that appellant Ali Mohd. Dar used to visit the
house of the deceased because Muzamilla had fallen ill and injections
were required to be administered to her. This explanation provides an
entirely plausible and innocent reason for his visits to the house of the
deceased. Even the statement of the witness that he had, some months
earlier, advised the appellant not to maintain proximity with the co-
appellant does not establish either an illicit relationship or any criminal
conspiracy to commit murder. At best, such evidence may create
suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot assume the character
of legal proof required for sustaining a conviction in a criminal trial.
48. We remain fully conscious of the fact that the deceased met a
homicidal death. However, the mere fact that a homicide has occurred
does not automatically justify the conviction of the accused unless
there exists reliable evidence connecting them with the commission of
the offence. The prosecution was required to prove not only that the
death was homicidal in nature, but also that it was the appellants and
none else who caused such death. In the present case, there is a
complete absence of tangible, independent, and legally admissible
evidence linking the appellants to the homicidal death of the deceased.
Instead, the entire prosecution case appears to have been built
primarily upon the disclosure statements allegedly made by the
appellants during police investigation. Thereafter, an attempt was
made to lend credibility to those statements by tailoring the testimony
of prosecution witnesses in support of the prosecution narrative.

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 22 of 24

49. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of witnesses associated with the
recording of the alleged disclosure statements further demolishes the
prosecution case. During cross-examination, several witnesses fairly
admitted that the investigating agency had already informed them that
the appellants were responsible for the killing of the deceased. Such
admissions clearly indicate that the investigation had proceeded with a
predetermined mindset and that the witnesses were influenced by the
version supplied by the police. This circumstance seriously impairs the
credibility and evidentiary worth of the prosecution evidence. It thus
becomes manifest that the entire case of the prosecution substantially
rests upon inculpatory statements allegedly made by the appellants
while in police custody, unsupported by any independent corroborative
evidence. It is a settled proposition of law that disclosure statements or
confessional admissions made while in custody possess extremely
limited evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis of conviction
unless duly corroborated by independent material evidence.
50. The trial Court, while recording conviction under Section 302 of the
Penal Code, appears to have been greatly influenced by such
disclosure statements without properly appreciating the settled legal
principles governing their admissibility and evidentiary worth. The
trial Court failed to notice the material contradictions, inconsistencies,
and serious gaps in the prosecution case and consequently arrived at
findings which cannot be sustained in law. The appreciation of
evidence by the trial Court, therefore, suffers from perversity and
misapplication of settled principles of criminal law.
51. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 23 of 24

doubts, and such burden never shifts. Where the evidence on record
gives rise to two possible views, the one favourable to the accused
must necessarily be adopted. The benefit of every reasonable doubt
must go to the accused because the law presumes every person
innocent unless proven guilty through reliable and unimpeachable
evidence. In the present case, the prosecution evidence suffers from
serious infirmities, material omissions, and inconsistencies which
create substantial doubt regarding the truthfulness and reliability of the
prosecution story. Consequently, the appellants are clearly entitled to
the benefit of doubt. Their conviction and sentence, therefore, cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law, is therefore, set aside. Accordingly, the
appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them and, if in
custody, shall be released forthwith unless required in connection with
any other case. Copy of judgement be notified to trial court for further
compliance.

52. Reference is answered accordingly.

( SANJAY PARIHAR ) ( SANJAY DHAR )
JUDGE JUDGE
Srinagar
29.05.2026
“Imtiyaz”
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

CrlA(D) No.58/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No.63/2025 & Crl Ref(L) No.01/2025 Page 24 of 24